R v Samy Daim [2025] EWCA Crim 1776

[2025] EWCA Crim 1776

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Venue Royal Courts of Justice

Date Wednesday, 10 December 2025

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Before

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CACD

LORD JUSTICE EDIS

MR JUSTICE PEPPERALL

MR JUSTICE SHELDON

Between

REXCrown

Between

SAMY DAIM

__________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

_________

MR R ROSSER appeared for Applicant

_________

J U D G M E N T

[1]MR JUSTICE SHELDON: Samy Daim, the applicant, seeks to renew his application for leave to appeal from the sentence of four years and four months imposed by His Honour Judge Silas Reid sitting at the Inner London Crown Court on 17 June 2025, following his plea of guilty to 11 counts of fraud. It is submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive for offences of fraud with a value of £213,180, where the offender was an individual of good character who received full credit for his plea. The offences

[2]On 24 February 2025, the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. On 6 June 2025 he pleaded guilty to nine counts of fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. The nature of the offending on each occasion was substantially similar.

[3]With respect to the first count on the first indictment, an international student, Matteo Giambiasi was looking for accommodation and found an apartment at 8 Walworth Road London on two websites. He was shown the property by a female called "Sarah" on 11 February 2024. He subsequently spoke to the applicant on the telephone and agreed to pay 12 months’ rent in advance to let the property. A DocuSign electronic contract was emailed to Mr Giambiasi by the applicant. On 18 March 2024, Mr Giambiasi transferred £19,730 to the applicant. When Mr Giambiasi tried to make arrangements to move into the property, he was given various excuses. Unable to get hold of the applicant, Mr Giambiasi attended the accommodation and spoke with the building manager. He discovered that the applicant was not the owner of the property. Mr Giambiasi then contacted the police and Action Fraud.

[4]A very similar story applied to the second count. Two people, Alma Talbot and Bruce Maurice-Jones saw the same property on the internet. They spoke to the applicant and were invited to a viewing. After being shown around they agreed to let the property and were sent a DocuSign contract inviting them to pay 12 months’ rent in advance. They transferred £19,730 to the applicant. The following day, Miss Talbot was contacted by her university housing services and told that the letting was probably fraudulent as the registered check did not match. She went to the police who contacted the real owner and established that the applicant was the tenant of 8 Walworth Road and had not been paying rent. Miss Talbot managed to get her money back from Monzo.

[5]The applicant was arrested on 25 January 2025, at Heathrow Airport as he attempted to board a plane to Thailand. Additional individuals were identified by the police leading to further fraud charges with respect to the property at 8 Walworth Road and two other properties: Flat 17, 30-31 Cartwright Gardens, and Flat 311, 4 Cutter Lane, Greenwich. The properties were listed on property websites and potential tenants were invited for viewings and offered substantial reductions on the rent if they made payments up front.

[6]Between 14 November and 26 November 2023, Yara El-Shabouri was defrauded of £19,500 (offence 1 on the second indictment). Between 18 and 23 June 2023, Febriana Wulan Sari was defrauded of £19,500 (offence 2). On 3 November 2023, Baihaqi Abdullah was defrauded of £16,500 (offence 3). Between 23 October 2023 and 3 November 2023, Craig Spokes was defrauded of £19,500 (offence 4). In March 2024, Rozanna Jayne Short was defrauded of £19,730 (offence 5). Between 17 and 22 March 2024, Kaan Erdi was defrauded of £19,730 (offence 6). Between 4 and 5 August 2024, Jie Liu was defrauded of £19,730 (offence 7). On 6 August 2024, Khalid Shacker was defrauded of £19,800 (offence 8). On 4 August 2024, Ho Ching Shum was defrauded of £19,730 (offence 9).

[7]The total fraud for all of the offences came to £213,180. The applicant, who had trained, qualified and worked as an estate agent in the past, used a limited company, "Cobblestone Reality Group" to conduct the fraud. Sentencing

[8]In sentencing the applicant, the learned judge noted that before this offending the applicant was of good character. He used his background as an estate agent to commit the offences which the learned judge regarded as sophisticated offending with significant planning. The applicant's victims were under the impression that they were dealing with a legitimate rental of a property and were offered a significant discount if they paid the one year rental up front. This would be seen as attractive to them. Further, the applicant arranged for someone to show the victims around the property. The applicant also created a company to purport to be the landlord and he made the documentation look exactly as it should.

[9]The learned judge found that all of the victims suffered a considerable detrimental impact because for all of them the amount of money they lost was significant. For two of them the learned judge found that they suffered serious detrimental impact. One couple was made up of a pregnant woman and her husband. As a result of the fraud they were left in a situation where they were almost unable to afford food. Another victim had been recently bereaved. The learned judge also referred to one victim whose hair fell out and had his sleep disrupted. Another had lost their job and their possessions and had nowhere to live.

[10]The learned judge considered that there were different ways of approaching sentencing. One way was to look at the offences in groups and make the sentences consecutive. This would lead to a sentence before discount of about 12 years. Looking at the sentencing guideline on “totality” the learned judge regarded that as too long a sentence:

"One matter in June 2023, just under £20,000, that would be a category 4 case, which would mean a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. Considerable detrimental impact on your victim would move that matter up. The allowances I can give for your good character, although they must be tempered by the time it comes to August 2024 and you are yet again committing these offences, might have some impact downwards on that sentence. In relation to November 2023, that would be a category 3 case. But there, as I have said, there was serious detrimental impact on more than one of your victims in that period. That would move it up to category 2. A 2A case has a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment. Again, there are other factors to be taken into account. In relation to March 2024, a 3A case again would have a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, but considerable impact on your victims and perhaps tempered again by your good character and the other matters which I have read and heard about you, including the positive steps you have taken in prison. Finally, in relation to the fourth set of offences in August 2024, there the amount of money obtained greater than the starting point, significantly greater than the starting point based on £50,000. Again, a three-year starting point. Again, the considerable detrimental impact on your victims."

[11]The other way of looking at the matter was to consider the sentences globally as if they were one piece of offending. This led to a categorisation under the sentencing guidelines of culpability A because the learned judge found the fraud had been conducted over a sustained period of time and there were a large number of victims. There was also Category 1 harm because there was serious detrimental effect on more than one of the applicant's victims. This led to a starting point within the guidelines of seven years.

[12]Whichever way the matter was looked at, the learned judge decided that the appropriate sentence if there had been a trial, taking into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, would have been six years and six months' imprisonment. From this the learned judge gave full credit for the applicant's pleas reducing the sentence to 52 months, that is four years and four months' imprisonment. The appeal

[13]The applicant is represented at this hearing by Mr Rosser who also appeared for him at the sentencing hearing. Mr Rosser's submissions are persuasive. Mr Rosser submits that with respect to culpability the matter was not neatly categorised as a higher culpability case: the number of victims was not large, the applicant's modus operandi was not particularly sophisticated, and there was limited evidence that others were involved in the offending. As there were no statutory aggravating factors he submitted that there ought to have been either a downward adjustment from a culpability A starting point or an upward adjustment from the culpability B starting point.

[14]With respect to the categorisation of harm, Mr Rosser submits that the learned judge's approach was essentially to aggravate the sentence to category 1 resulting in a starting point of seven years when this was not justified. Mr Rosser pointed out that the prosecution's sentencing note had suggested a medium level of harm. He also pointed out that some individuals did not suffer any loss. Many individuals did not suffer serious detrimental impact and only two of the victims were actually identified as suffering serious detrimental impact. At most ,Mr Rosser submits the learned judge should have moved up within the category range and not moved up into the higher category range.

[15]Mr Rosser also referred to the substantial mitigation. He said that the applicant had no previous convictions and had a number of certificates and positive behaviour entries. He also observed that the applicant had expressed remorse for his actions. Ultimately Mr Rosser submitted that the sentence of four years and four months was manifestly excessive. Discussion

[16]In our judgment the appeal is not arguable. In refusing leave on the papers, the single

judge stated as follows:

"In my judgment, the points you seek to argue are over-mechanistic and overlook the fact that the sentencing guidelines are for a single offence. There were multiple victims here whom you systematically defrauded of money which many could ill afford, and the human cost is shown by many of the victim personal statements. The learned judge could have imposed consecutive sentences for the four main periods of offending and had he done so, your sentence would arguably have been longer, even after adjustment for totality. As it was, he ... gave full credit for all offences ... and adopted a methodology of reaching a single sentence to reflect all the criminality and making the sentences concurrent. This resulted in a sentence which, in my view, could not be argued to be excessive, never mind manifestly excessive."

We agree.

[17]Adopting a global approach which the learned judge was entitled to do, it was reasonably open to him to conclude that the starting point was seven years (that is category 1A). The offending was comfortably within culpability A. The fraudulent activity was conducted over a sustained period of time and there were a large number of victims. Further, the offending was of a sophisticated nature. The applicant used his background and experience as an estate agent to give prospective renters the impression that they were dealing with a legitimate landlord. The properties were advertised on property websites. The renters were given the opportunity to view the property. An offer of rent as a substantial discount was made and the documentation used gave the impression of legitimacy.

[18]With respect to harm, the financial loss caused or intended exceeded £200,000 and therefore fell within category 2 before consideration of victim impact. There was evidence before the learned judge of at least two victims who suffered seriously detrimental effects. Based on the sentencing guidelines therefore it was reasonably open to the learned judge to move the harm up a category to category 1. Looking closely at the guidelines, it can be seen that it does not say that all of the victims have to have suffered serious detrimental impacts before moving up a category of harm.

[19]Accordingly, there was ample basis for the learned judge to set a starting point of seven years. From this starting point it was open to the learned judge to reduce the sentence by six months to reflect the applicant's mitigation. The learned judge then applied a reduction of one-third for the applicant's guilty plea, leading to a sentence of four years and four months.

[20]Standing back and considering the offending as a whole and the impact on so many individuals who were defrauded of a year's rent, the sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive but was well within the range of sentences open to the learned judge. Accordingly, we refuse leave to appeal. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE21. Tel No: 020 7404 1400

22. Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk